The James Tax Commission

In the common council room on Tuesday and yeeterday, Commissioners Bogarais, Goldsmith and Brown listened lo the argumenta of attorneys in the Luther James tax case. Prof. Griffin poke all day yesterday, and Prof. K'fow'ton is speakirg today. E. B. Norria opened the case for Ann Arbor. He claimed that the tax roll for 1888 gave a prima facie case for the city. The only thing the commission had to determine was whether Mr. James was a tsxable citizen in Ann Arbor or not in 1888. There was no evidence before the nommission that Mr. James was in Lima at all during the year 1888. It was material for the city to show that Mr. James had a room in Ann Arbor, lived here, did his business here, had his washing done here, and carne here when he was sick. The other side had shown that at one time Mr. James said hisresidence was io Lima, and that he voted there, although he never registered there, baving met a Lima township oflSoer in Ann Arbor and rtquested his Dame to be put down. Much of the evidence referred to was what Mr. James had claimed, and what aman claimed out of court for himself on a tax queation could not be taken in evidence. It had been shown that Mr. James contributed to the support of a Chel-ea church; but the law doesn't make such contribulions a duty of citizenship. As to voting, Mr. Norris said that there was no evidence that Mr. James had resided in Lima 10 days before any election, and therefore he was not a qualiBed voter there. He read authorities to show that the fact of a man's voting unchallenged was not decisive evidence of where he resided nd where he should py taxe3. If we allow that it may be done, then rich bachelors have an opportunity of escsping taxation not available for rich widows snd old maids, beoause the widows and old maids can't vote. If we grant that a man can pay bis toxes wherever he pleases, then men who have much taxable prop rty will seek out places where taxes are iaw. He cited a Massaehusetta ease in which a man's house was on a town line. The court held that the man was a citizen of the lownship in which he did all or most of thofe acts which go to charactize a dwelliug-place; if that couldn't be determraed, then he could elect in which he resided. There was no question that Mr. James did all those acts in Ann Arbor ; there ia no evidecce that he apent two days in a hundred in Lima. There had been placed in evidence several wills and mortgages in which Mr. James had claimed his residence in Lima, but they were merely declarations of the defendant, which were not good evidence. Mr. Norris said tbat the finding by the commission for Ann Arbor would not do an injugtice to the James' estáte, because in 20 years the amount of its taxes was not equal to what it ought to have paid in any one of the yearg. City Attorney Éearney spoke upon one point, that a man could not pretend to change his residence to escape taxation without its beinga fraud; that if he wanted to escape the taxation, he must actually make the chaDge. He claimed that there was plenty of oircumstantial evidence to show that Mr. James claimed the residence for the purpose of escaping taxation. Mr. Kearney also re&d decisions to show that no one could 9elect his place for assessment and taxation, but must be Uxed where he actuslly resided. G. W. Turnbull, of Chelsea, replied to the point that Mr. James fixed his residence in Lima to defraud Ann Arbcr of taxes. He showed that the difference in the amount of his taxes in Ann Arbor in 1870 and in Lima in 1871 was ocly $5, not large enough to make fraud an object, while James paid $45 a year to the Chelsea Congregational church. He claimed that Ann Arbor was a perfect hospital for ricb men to escape taxation in. In the First ward of Ann Arbor at the same time, Rice A. Beal was assessed only $3,000 personal property. He elaimed that tne evidence shows that Mr. James established a residence in Lima in the fall of 3870. Mr?. Sears swore that he carne to her house then and made arrangements for a home in her house, and that for a long time he spent every Sunday ia her house. If he did establish a residence there in 1870, his residence was there in 1888, because there is no evidence that he changed his residence back to Ann Arbor. The faots that James voted in Lima, attended church occasional!y in Chelsea, and had Lima mentioned in his mortgages as his residence, went to prove tbat Lima was his residence. He thought that the fact of Mr. James' name being dropped from the assessment rolls of Ann Arbor in 1871 5 wns proof that the officers of Ann Arbor understood and acknowlrfdged his change of residence. Mr. Turnbull declared no one ever heard Mr. James say bis residence was in Ann Arbor, but Mr. Norris stopped him and read from the testimony, in whieh H. Krapf 8aid that Mr. James told bim that if they didn't stop assessing him so in Ann Arbor, he would move to some other pUce. Mr. Turnbull thought that because Mr. James' taxes had been light had nothing to do wilh the commission's duty. All the nch men of the county, he said, largeIv escaped taxation; the .poor men paid iheir taxes in f uil, and the rich men's too; but this inju8tice was soinethiog the commission was not callad to consider. The questioa was whether they would rob Lima to give to Ann Arbor.